The End of Roe and Casey?

It’s an almost-all-Dobbs podcast, as David and Sarah discuss the oral argument that surprised the ...

By and
401

It’s an almost-all-Dobbs podcast, as David and Sarah discuss the oral argument that surprised the nation. Could Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually fall? David and Sarah talk about the court’s decision-making process from here and the history of judge-flipping post-argument, and they identify the key moments in yesterday’s argument. Also, they give their listeners a vital challenge–and if they can meet that challenge, then Advisory Opinions will be the indisputable flagship of the Dispatch podcast fleet. Listen to learn what the challenge is.

Show Notes:

–Dobbs v. Jackson oral argument transcript

–Ginsburg’s remarks on Roe

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (401)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    LLM4OSU

    This was an excellent discussion. I listened until Sarah finally brought up the pertinent moral point that I see many in this comment section seem to be missing: Mora Philosophy 101 teaches that where there is a “right,” there is a corresponding “responsibility/ obligation.” If the State decides that the “right” of the fetus to life outweighs the “right” of the women to freedom and life and the pursuit of happiness, essentially forcing her to bring a child into this world, then the State has the obligation to assure continued “rights” of the child once born, which includes all the rights of any other person. In essence, the State assumes the responsibility of assuring Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Does the State truly want to take on that job? No. I don’t think so. And it shouldn’t. Any truly Conservative/Libertarian should be on the other side of this debate … and always should have been. But the Christian Right hijacked this debate years ago. Note: I am Catholic and abhor the idea of abortion and believe it is objectively a moral evil. But I also believe the power of the State should be limited to the greatest degree possible.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bethfreitag

      Why does the State have more responsibility toward ensuring rights for child whose mother wanted to end his life in the womb than it does for any other citizen? The State does try to ensure the right to Life for (almost) every person, isn't that why we have laws against murder? But it doesn't follow that because the State says "you are not allowed to kill this person" that is the State assuming responsibility for that person.

      Now if mother's who wanted to abort instead give birth and relinquish their child to the State then yes, the State would be responsible for their care. But that responsibility would entail finding an adoptive home for said child thereby relieving the State of any further responsibility.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Dguaspari

    A technical question: Roe essentially overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states. If a state has made no subsequent abortion laws, presumably (?) the overturning of Roe would not reinstate the law that Roe erroneously overturned (?)

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pfxbrennan

    Dear Mr. French:

    You are the most thoughtful and charitable commentator in the Public Square of whom I am aware. That is why I have the temerity to address a matter upon which I think we have divergent opinions. I trust you will consider mine, and I hope your response will enlighten my understanding of the issue.

    You have expressed a conviction that a “Dobbs” opinion returning the abortion question to the states may turn out to be a salve on the wound that Roe and Casey have inflicted upon the nation. That idea seems to me to be at odds with the argument offered in your book. If some states promote abortion at any time for any reason, while others prohibit the procedure entirely, will not deep civil, legal and emotional antagonisms result? I see the potential for separation increasing, not diminishing.

    Furthermore, on the abortion question, I wonder if we on the “pro-life” side don't have a responsibility to understand the development (origin, if you will) of the “pro-choice” position:

    Christians around the world are preparing to celebrate the “Incarnation” of the Son of God. Why do we not observe it on the feast of the Annunciation, when the Holy Child was conceived, rather than on the anniversary of His birth? For nearly two thousand years, the Birth of Christ, not His Conception, has been celebrated as the moment when “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” Perhaps we need to cut some slack for those who see a big gray space between impregnation and personhood.

    For the record, I am an 80-something Roman Catholic, raised and educated in orthodoxy prior to the Second Vatican Council. Although my “modern” friends consider me a dinosaur, my “conservative” associates pray for my conversion, as I have come to place Mercy before Justice, Faith before Rigor. I believe that God is Love, Jesus is God, and if we are to be one with Him, we must Love, also.

    May the joys and graces of this holy season bless you and your family.

    Patrick Brennan
    Marquette, Michigan

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Kate

    Are we really expecting to see an opinion written about how abortion rights are a prerequisite for workplace equality? I don't understand how saying pregnancy inhibits career opportunities is an argument for abortion rights so much as it's an indictment of a society that limits a woman's capacity to define what success and happiness looks like for her. I guess you can't have it all?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    Great conversation David and Sarah. The best I have heard on this topic (which of course should surprise no one!).

    Collapse
  6. Payette

    This was a really good discussion of the legal and societal possibilities after Dobbs is decided. I particularly appreciated the discussion of how the anti-abortion constituency needs to refocus on helping with young mothers’ lives. For years I’ve been irked by the labels “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life.” Except in cases of rape or incest, girls and women have many choices to make well before becoming sexually active; there are many options to prevent pregnancy. Those choices really should be emphasized. And “Pro-Life” has been no better the “Pro-Pregnancy;" once that baby is born, you’re on your own. Just being pro-pregnancy is not enough.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “Kidnap Jonah?” Pretty sure that was all AO listeners heard at the end…

    This podcast gave me hope once again that Roe will be overturned. And maybe Chevron!

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Slp

    Thank you Haley for saying one quiet part out loud, the Plessy argument is the Hitler argument of abortion. I am confused by the idea that science has given new support to the idea of personhood from conception on. Uniqueness and aliveness of any cell or group of cells is not a new finding. The double helix and the power of DNA was demonstrated before I took biology in the 60's. Ascribing personhood at such early stages is a religious argument. I don't know the history of the thought about infusion of soul into babies, but I don't imagine it was conception until fairly recently. Soul itself is a religious concept.

    I have come to understand by reading the lawyers at the Dispatch, my understanding of the constitution and especially of the body of constitutional law that interprets it is much too simplistic. So what I think the guarantee of religious freedom or freedom from state imposed religious practice means may not suffice here. But nonetheless, I consider it very invasive to my freedom of conscience and arbitrary for any government or other body to tell me and enforce when or if a soul is infused or when personhood begins.

    I would say that child and maternal mortality numbers in the US are a pretty good indicator of the likelihood of the prolife movement's ability to help women and children. State money is a political matter and the policies of the states most active in restricting abortion access strike me as much more fundamentalist than the softer versions of conservative Christianity.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Slp

      Oops, thank you Sarah. "blush emoji"

      Collapse
  9. David

    There is no doubt that women shoulder a greater burden in child birth and child rearing. This is the result of the inequality of nature. Women are the only ones capable of being pregnant and breastfeeding.

    However, I would point out that there are other natural inequities that result in men carrying more of a burden. For example, men are generally physically stronger than women, and as a result tend to be better soldiers than women. Men are the only ones potentially subject to conscription into the armed forces against their will, which may result in severe injury or death. There is, I believe, a compelling state interest in conscription if necessary to defend the nation. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that it does not offend their liberty and interests in personal autonomy. Many draftees have been killed or suffered severe mental or physical injury.

    That we no longer have a conscription law (aside from selective service registration) demonstrates that policy bodies, i.e., legislatures, can decide how to balance personal autonomy and state interests. The state legislatures can do the same for abortion.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Djhorv

    So it there a rating platform of choice for the non Apple user? It is not easy to rate your podcast on Apple Podcast as an Android/ChromeOS user. I would encourage you all that there is much more to the world than the limited Apple IOS community. Great Podcast by the way.

    Collapse
Load More